vk_post_projects_ea031ad60f34

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that authentication is required, explains the raw proxy nature, body field usage, and parameter alias conventions. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but the core side effect (changing events) is clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description contains redundant phrasing—'Change a webhook target's events' appears twice, and there's a typo with double periods. Though short, this repetition could have been edited down, making it less polished than a concise description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, endpoint, authentication, parameter passing style, and the constraint on changing only events. It lacks explicit return-value information, but for a raw proxy with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that body is optional and holds the JSON payload, that path and query parameters are top-level fields, and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted—context not present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool changes a webhook target's events, and the endpoint template specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from other vk_post_projects tools by emphasizing the webhook-specific scope and the limitation that only events can be changed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: it's a raw proxy for a specific Vikunja endpoint, and it explicitly states that other webhook values cannot be changed. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the exclusion is clear enough for selecting this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.